With New Vegas' rocky release I can't help but think that this could have been all but avoided if Bethesda simply delayed the game a few more months to ensure that what people picked up at the store will be the experience that they have come to expect from the respected franchise. Perhaps a selective beta could've also helped find some of the issues the developer missed. Please answer the poll and leave your comments for further discussion.

I think the issue here is more to do with what other people are doing.
Everyone knows that a certain CoD is out next week and i they'd have held onto this game for a few more weeks and released it anywhere near CoD's release date then sales would have been hugely affected. So Bethesda pushed it out early, bugs and all to maximise profit before CoD enters the market.
Thats just my theory but i think its pretty sound.

may be true but i wonder how bad the sales have been hurt by all the bad word of mouth and returns...

if my xbox freezes to this game one more time.........!

IMO companies that rush a release to beat another game out on the market is utterly stupid and does nothing but show they are more interested in money than the quality of their product. Gamers who like CoD (or any other game) are going to buy it regardless of what else is on the shelf.

I love Fallout universe games (with exception of Tactics ;p ). I also love the Assassins Creed games and anxiously waiting for Brotherhood. Not knowing which to get first I talked to my neighbor who picked up Fallout: New Vegas on release day. He groaned "Let's see if it works for you." when I asked him how it was and tossed me his copy to play. After ten hrs of game time, I can now say I will not be buying Fallout: New Vegas unless fixes are made.

I am beginning to believe I am in the minority these days. I do not buy games on the day of their release. I first check the games forums and see how well it is working and wait at least one or two weeks to see if any major patches are in the works. No game, no matter how much I love the franchise, is worth spending money on if it does not work.

I'm no expert but i reckon that the bulk of sales for a highly anticipated game are generated 1-2 weeks from launch. By the time the bugs have started hitting people,i would have expected them to have sold enough units to cushion the blow from the bad publicity, at least until they decide to patch it.

As for returns, does anyone know if Bethesda are seeing any?
Yes, people will be returning games to their retailers and if they are lucky, getting a refund but are the retailers returning them to the publishers? Or are they just sticking them back on sale?
Are Bethesda honouring their obligations as publishers and refunding people for selling damaged goods, unfit for purpose?
I highly doubt it.

Anyway, its just a theory of mine that they knew the game was broken on release but with CoD and Xmas round the corner, a delay would have hit them hard in the pocket so they released anyway,made some cash and will take until Xmas to fix it.
But then again,I'm just a little cynical. :wink_smile:

@Shuto
I agree, in an ideal world we could all buy as many games as we wanted but when little Johnny asks his mum for a game,possibly for Xmas, the game he wants to play is going to be CoD. And at ￡40 a shot, a lot of people can only afford one game at a time so i think that the CoD factor is a huge one when discussing the merits of releasing this bugfest in its present form.

Obsidian/Bethesda are gonna lose money anyway from the people returning their games and by telling people not to by this buggy joke of a game. Serves Obsi/Beth right for being competitive and rushing a game of this size. If a patch isn't coming out this week, I'm going to CoD.

I am not a parent (and the world cheers), so I can not/will not comment on little Johnny. Just wondering where in my post I said anything about buying as many games as we wanted? In a nutshell I said it does not matter what is out there, if people like CoD they will buy it.

I offer up how I evaluate what game I am going to buy when I am stuck with a choice between two I like and that I never buy a game right at the start of its release. Even if games were still at the $19 price tag there is nothing that would convince me to buy a game like this released as it is.

/rant to all game dev's

Xbox, PS3, Wii, etc are set platforms. What is in one is in them all as far as equipment goes. How in the world can you justify the crap that has been released to the platform community when there is one set standard? It is not the job of the public to beta test your game *after* release.

/end rant to all game dev's

This. I did not pay full retail price for a new game in order to do your [censored] job for you. Testing games is not something I want to spend my free time doing, not if I paid for it.

I did'nt really word that correctly and i apologise if it sounded as if i was putting words in your mouth.
It was more of my impression of what the publishers thought process was.
I was basically agreeing with you.What i meant was that if CoD was not on the horizon then maybe they would'nt have rushed this out because it would have been a sure fire Xmas hit and on a lot of people's must have list (even thought little Johnny is'nt supposed to play it) :wink_smile: .
Anyway, its all speculation.

No worries, stuff happens. Although I have to say that I do think they would have shipped no matter what. It's all about the money now, to heck if the game works. "Ship now, fix whenever!" seems to be the mantra coming from the suits and they will get away with it as long as people buy it without question. I know it sounds bad, but I would love for all sales of games to take a huge dip so these companies would wake up and realize that yes, players do insist on quality for their money. I would love to be able to go into a store, pick up a copy of any game and actually not notice any major problem in it. I am not saying a bug free game, such a thing does not exist. However, I am saying, at least with a platform that they do not have to anticipate different hardware configurations, there should be zero game breaking issues.

As a PC gamer I expect conflicts from having a rig configuration different from that of most people out there. As an Xbox gamer I expect to be able to enjoy what I buy because player 1's Xbox is the same as player 400's.

1+ devs are starting to do it more and more often, and quite frankly i am pissed. I don't care if it takes 100 years make a game i can play launch date.

Majority wins, thats all i will say.

Im not saying that this testing would be post release or post purchasing... if its selective and free or at a fair price then i believe it could catch a lot of problems very quickly. Modern Warfare 2 did not have a beta before release...i rest my case.

Since this is an official forum bethesda is going to get the message from all of these topics that yes people do insist on quality. And with regards to other developers...they lose money when we tell all our friends that the game is a giant bugfest. They should be getting the message.

True, it does. but unfortunately it is also a case of majority wins, everyone loses.

I really do wish this was the case. But way too many times 'voices have been heard' and nothing has been done. I take it step further than just telling my friends now. I actually go to midnight releases and talk with gamers about the decline of quality from games and what we can do about it. I don't try to argue with them, just point out all the rush to release problems that many games have had in the past few years. Yeah, more than one have called me a headcase but I wonder how they feel when they try to play that brand new game and opps, it froze. Just as long as the message is heard and remembered when that next new game comes out.